|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Ah, sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant was that your final damage for the first unarmed strike using both dragon style and dragon ferocity is your unarmed strike die + (1.5 x your strength modifier, in place of your usual strength modifier) + (.5 x your strength modifier), for a total of 2x your strength modifier to damage. The rest of your primary unarmed strikes for that round would add 1.5x your strength modifier to damage (your usual strength modifier +.5x your strength modifier).
As a house rule, I was just suggesting Dragon Style add .5x your strength modifier to avoid it giving a disproportionate edge to an offhand unarmed strike, supposing that was the first unarmed strike you made in a round.
First, cantrips aren't just 0th level spells in Pathfinder, but a distinct class feature. Alchemists do not have cantrips.
Second, you can only learn spells from a wizard's spellbook if those spells also appear on the alchemist's extract list. They're learned as extracts of a level appropriate to the alchemist, not wizard.
Third, Metamagic feats have no bearing on spellbooks. They're applied when a wizard memorizes their spells per day. Alchemists, as written, can't even make use of metamagic feats.
Setting aside flurry of blows for a moment, this feat has the odd effect that you add 1.5x your strength bonus on the first unarmed strike made in a round even if it's an off-hand attack. It could even be interpreted through a literal reading as allowing you to add 1.5x your strength bonus in addition to the usual strength bonus to damage (though the "normal" section implies that's not the intent).
Dragon Ferocity is a lot more streamlined in that it simply adds half your strength modifier to all unarmed strikes. That works fine with flurry, whereas I agree Dragon Style presents a conflict. Accordingly, I would just revise Dragon Style to add .5x your strength bonus on the first unarmed strike you make in a round.
Either way, as written, the first unarmed strike you make with Dragon Ferocity (assuming it's a primary attack) uses x2 your strength bonus for damage, which is pretty cool.
I wouldn't consider alchemist extracts to be Supernatural effects. I think labeling the Alchemy class feature (Su) was one of several mistakes. Extracts behave in no other way like supernatural abilities (they can be dispelled, consuming them provokes), and given their similarity to spells, it seems reasonable that spell resistance would apply.
For an example of an extract where this is relevant, fire breath.
There isn't much point in arguing that an item that generates an anti-magic field is impossible. One has already been printed.
Anyway, 120k for 1 minute of AMF per day is a big investment. 60k if you craft it yourself, which is more reasonable, but takes feats. You need tower shield proficiency to avoid some hefty penalties, and it prohibits wielding a weapon two-handed. So useful, but not for everyone.
Good GMs will also throw mixed encounters at you. So that arch wizard might be guarded by a dragon. Throwing up an AMF will let you rip the wizard apart, but you'll have to make it through the dragon's threatened area with all your magic nullified first.
There's an item that does this! Equalizer Shield. There was also an item in 3.5 that provided a 1/day anti-magic field, the Anti-magic Torc (Underdark, 25k).
I haven't gotten the opportunity to play a character with either option, but I think it'd be useful occasionally. The biggest issue I think is that even if your character is optimized to work without magic, most of your party probably isn't.
Bottled Ooze is an awesome idea, but it's a pretty terrible discovery. The low CR restriction is bad. Worse, you don't control the ooze, and can only throw it out to a range of 30ft. It's nice that you decide when and where the ooze appears, but it makes the tactical applications pretty limited. At worst, you've just added another monster to the encounter (that you won't get XP for).
My argument against a buff is only that the discovery needs a revision first. Pathfinder deliberately revised all 3.5 abilities that allowed you to become a monster for a reason. Writers don't intend for their monsters to be used by the players, so you can end up with some unbalanced options (such creatures that create spawn). Which is probably why they were so conservative with the CR.
I'd change the range to 20ft, but treat it as a thrown weapon (5 range increments), let the alchemist mentally compel the ooze as a move action, and make a specific list of oozes for each extract level. Though if you were feeling more ambitious, you could homebrew an ooze that scales with level, and even give it a list selectable abilities (similar to an eidolon).
So, looking at the buckler gun, I'm having trouble understanding the intended function. Historically, bucklers were held, so it's not too hard to imagine a buckler gun working that way. But in Pathfinder, bucklers are strapped to the arm, allowing for a free hand. So how do you fire the gun? Or, more specifically:
1.)Do you still have a free hand when armed with a buckler gun?
2.)Do you take a -1 penalty to the attack roll when firing a buckler gun, since you're using the off-hand carrying the buckler? Do you lose the buckler gun's shield bonus until your next turn?
3.)To create a masterwork buckler gun, do you pay the costs of both a masterwork shield and a masterwork weapon? Do you determine the hardness and hit points of the item as a buckler or a projectile weapon? How do you handle special materials?
Or maybe you're meant to fire the gun with the hand on which the buckler isn't strapped?
I think the intent is that the ability applies to willing targets only. Even then, it's not too clear by what means you confer that ability (touch? proximity?). Even if you could grant a creature earth glide against its will, it's dubious that you could force them to use it by pulling them underground. Even then, if the ability must be spent in 1-minute increments, then they've got plenty of time to just climb right out.
There's also nothing that states what happens if the duration ends while you're within stone. The rules suggest you're not actually displacing stone while you move through it, so I think it's unlikely you'd be encased by it. I'd say you're shunted out to a random open space, as dimension door.
By the way, what you're attempting is similar to the Shaitan's Stone Curse.
The Bombs class feature is a bit of a mess in that it's a set of combined actions. You draw the components for, mix, and throw the bomb all with the same action. The act of mixing and throwing the bomb isn't supernatural, but the effects of the bomb are. But the rules never make this distinction. Bombs meet all the prerequisites of the conductive property.
I think the only argument against them working together is that it goes against the logic of bombs. The ranged touch attack shouldn't be considered supernatural, just the effects, and a conductive weapon is an odd substitution for the process of alchemy. Though, as mentioned, explosive missile essentially does the same thing. It's a powerful option, but nothing too crazy.
How to determine amount of hit dice and levels on an animal companion over Effective druid level 20?
Yeah, I wouldn't count on playing this. I think it's clear that Animal Ally wasn't intended to work the way it does, and it would indeed be a dodgy reading of Horse Master to try to multiply the effective levels it grants. I would settle for less dubious tricks and make due with 30 something HD of animal companions.
The FAQ rules that Vital Strike can't be used in combination with spring attack or a charge, and by the same logic wouldn't work with shot on the run. House ruling otherwise makes sense though.
I'd drop Far Shot in favor of Signature Deed (Deadeye), which will essentially let you always hit touch AC within the first two range increments. The Distance weapon enhancement (+1) is also a must have. With that, he'll be hitting touch AC within 160ft. Since Seeking (+1) covers half the function of improved precise shot, you might drop that for Deft Shootist Deed (Grit Feat), which allows you to avoid provoking while reloading and firing firearms. Depends on how confident you are of his ability to stay out of melee, I guess.
Haha, I had a feeling that statement would be challenged! I'll skip on trying to counter with absurd Pathfinder-level tests of skill though. Neat video.
I was under the impression musket master did nothing for advanced firearms. Unlike early firearms, it's a move action to reload both one-handed and two-handed advanced firearms, so the reduction from Fast Musket has no effect. Rapid reload doesn't seem to take into account advanced firearms either. Am I missing something? (I know there was a thread debating metal cartridges reload speed, but I didn't keep up with it.)
I don't think alchemists and gunslingers are all that comparable. Alchemist is a pretty versatile class with the potential to nova, but have to conserve their resources. A Gunslinger is very narrow but with enough ammunition can pour out full-attack damage all day. Measuring one against the other seems a bit arbitrary to me, given their different functions.
The way I look at it, if huge or larger creatures are treated as if they failed their save against a tanglefoot bag, that doesn't change that they're unaffected by a tanglefoot bag. By extension, I think they'd be unaffected by a tanglefoot bomb. Though I can see how you'd argue the other way on it. There's wiggle room when you have to patch together your own class feature.
I think the omission of tanglefoot bomb in the FAQ was just oversight. Nothing in the text suggests your bomb ceases to deal damage.
Anyway, I can say that I've playtested this write-up for a year and a half, and it was extremely useful, even with the size limitation (though that really comes down to DM monster preference. We fought only half a dozen huge or larger monsters at levels 1-9).
I think the reload time is the only thing that breaks immersion, for me. I mean, no one can operate a bow with the speed and accuracy that's possible in D&D/PF, but it's conceivable. The speed in which a character can reload a muzzle-loaded blackpowder firearm is just absurd. You'd be a Flash-like blur, to the point that it's comical. And it's pretty strange that it's possible to reload a musket faster than a shotgun.
As far as the Gunslinger goes, I think they had the right idea with the Dead Shot deed, letting your extra attacks amount to taking more time to aim a shot. It's just that the damage doesn't compare to a full-attack, and you have to spend grit to even do it. I think if deeds were selected every other level, grit more abundant, and deeds more effective, it would actually make for a more balanced class. Sure it'd be a buff, but with more tactical options available the gunslinger would have more incentive to do something other than full-attack every round.
As far as the world-building implications of guns, I don't think their inclusion makes that big a dent. They function differently from real world firearms and within a very unreal world. It takes as much dedication to make them usable as it does for someone to learn reality bending magic.
The extract states that your bombs "do not splash", which means the bomb has no splash radius, which is the area that determines the area of the fog cloud formed by the smoke bomb line of discoveries. That would be a simple answer, but then there's the line:
"This effect on your magical reserve has no effect on any discoveries that you use to modify your bombs..."
Which doesn't seem entirely true. Explosive bombs aren't going to splash out to 10ft if they don't splash at all. Sticky Bomb raises a similar question. If the bomb doesn't splash, does it still have splash damage to be applied by sticky bomb? If so, do you add twice your intelligence modifier to that splash damage?
At any rate, it either nullifies the cloud entirely, or the cloud is created entirely as normal. There's nothing that suggests the cloud would affect only a single target or have a reduced area.
I think it's a bit extreme to argue that a bomb with no splash effect ceases to be a splash weapon. There are other abilities that apply to splash weapons that should still be in effect, like the benefits of far shot gained through splash weapon mastery. But I agree that targeted bomb admixture has no risk of dealing splash damage on a miss, since it doesn't splash.
Does the Racial Heritage feat, combined with a feat that improves an inherent feature (claws, poison, etc) grant you that feature?
I agree with the argument that you don't necessarily grow a tail by taking tail terror. I also agree that if you don't have a tail, you can't make a tail slap.
On the other hand, I don't think it's unfair to allow someone with racial heritage (kobold) to gain a tail slap through tail terror. In this case, each feat is essentially doing what it was intended to do; racial heritage (kobold) is giving you access to a kobold feat, tail terror is granting your character a tail slap. I wouldn't call that abusive. Besides, if you want to say that your human has a kobold tail because of his racial heritage (kobold), hey, that's no more absurd than having kobold heritage in the first place.
Well, another question is whether or not the increase to mobility is a property of the item's magic, or a quality of the unnamed special material it's made out of. That's important not just for determining if it's eligible to become mithral, but what happens to it within an anti-magic field.
This is more of a "the rules don't say anything about this" thing. Tail Terror was written assuming only kobolds could take it. The RAW doesn't state you grow a tail or that you need a tail to gain the tail slap, it implies you already have one. If you don't have a tail, the feat makes a false presumption and you need to look at the RAI. Problem is that human heritage offers no clue to the intent of how that feat is meant to work in these situations.
This is a question that should never come up. Human heritage should address how to handle racial feats that grant natural attacks, but it doesn't. Anatomy prerequisites, such as needing a hand to gain a claw attack or needing a mouth to gain a bite attack, is something implied by game text but never stated explicitly. So I'm of the opinion that there is no answer to be found in the RAW or RAI. It's something unforeseen by the writers that requires developer clarification or a call by the GM.
I posted a thread about this a long time ago that didn't go anywhere (link). Whereas previously alchemical weapons required no proficiency, Ultimate Equipment lists alchemical weapons on a table labeled "Simple Weapons", and categorizes them under light melee weapons, one-handed melee weapons, and ranged weapons. So depending on how much weight you give to that table, weapon focus (acid) might be viable. It's arguable if quick draw would apply. The feat applies to weapons and prohibits alchemical items. I'd allow it for alchemical weapons though, since unlike the other prohibited items they're actually weapons.
There's nothing there that says it can ONLY be used as part of a full-round action. The first sentence leaves open the door, while the second merely says "can" prepare as part of full round action. But I'd love a more definitive ruling, since it'll affect whether I dip into Archer (Fighter archetype) to get the extra feats & BAB to get Snapshot and Improved Snapshot.
Ah, no. The first sentence tells you what the discovery accomplishes, the text that follows specifies how. Fast bombs doesn't grant you any benefit beyond the ability to use a full-round action to make a full-attack with your bombs. So snap shot is right out.
It's worth mentioning that Improved Multiweapon Fighting and Greater Multiweapon fighting did exist in 3.0/3.5, but were never republished in Pathfinder.
As far as not qualifying as having the two-weapon fighting, that's iffy. Multiweapon fighting states
Multiweapon Fighting wrote:
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
That's pretty open-ended wording. So maybe it only replaces your option of taking two-weapon fighting, but maybe it replaces every iteration of that feat for that character. So if another feat had two-weapon fighting as a prerequisite, it now has multiweapon fighting as a prerequisite in its place.
Haha, I wrote up a build that used a double-barreled pistol, but never bothered trying to TWF with them. At at certain point you've just got enough damage. Invest in something tactical! At the very least double-barreled firearms can help free up the feat tax of playing a gunslinger.
Yeah, the question of how double-barreled firearms function really does justify an FAQ clarification. It comes up often and the rules have no direct parallel to any other option. Though my feeling is that if this were done, it would either be nerfed or it wouldn't be nerfed, we'd see a 1000 post discussion of the FAQ entry, and then it would be nerfed. So for now, maybe just enjoy it quietly. :)
On balancing the gunslinger, I'll resist the urge to go off-topic, but at least say that the issues go way beyond individual firearms. (In theory, anyway. I've never played as or with a gunslinger).
@Rynjin: A free hand and an off-hand are two separate ideas. An off-hand is something defined only in the rules for two-weapon fighting, and isn't limited to just a hand (armor spikes). A free hand is an open hand.
I would argue that a longbow doesn't occupy your "off-hand". As a counter-example, I know you can't attack with armor spikes as an off-hand attack while wielding a two-handed weapon. That's a specific exception made by the FAQ, not something with game text to back it up (that I'm aware of). An off-hand is used when making an off-hand attack (through two-weapon fighting). Using a bow is not making an off-hand attack.
As far as two-weapon fighting with a longbow and an off-hand attack (such as a kick or a weapon held in a vestigial arm), I'd say maybe. The rules for two-weapon fighting really don't anticipate a character holding anything more than one weapon in each hand. That said, I probably wouldn't try it. The rules don't prohibit it, but they don't support it either.
@BBT: The rules for handedness and off-hands are barely defined. It's a weak spot in the core rules. If an ability is clearly meant to apply only to two-handed melee weapons, that's all it applies to.
"Spirits" as a concept isn't something that really fits into the core Pathfinder/D&D system. That's why 3.5's Spirit Shaman had a sidebar answering the question "What is a Spirit?". It included incorporeal undead, fey, and elementals, which needless to say are disparate creatures, mechanically.
As far as the spell list goes, both the cleric and druid lists cover different types of "spirits". Whichever list they settle on, I think most of the gaps can be filled with spirit magic. This is more or less the function of domains for both clerics and druids already.
Anyway, this is the reason why I would prefer the game as a whole use a different system for defining divine spell lists. Maybe something similar to 2nd Edition's Spheres of Influence. Towards that end, I like the idea that the shaman's spell list might be defined by his spirits, such as the Flame spirit granting all cleric and druid spells of the fire descriptor. You'd chose maybe 6 spirits at first level for your spell list, and your choice of wandering spirits would be limited to that list. Seems an unlikely approach though.
I think that's a stretch. Arcane Duelist states you may use the hand holding the bonded weapon for somatic components. That ability is useful for casting while wielding a weapon in each hand or a sword and shield. It doesn't serve as an argument that you can't remove one hand from a two-handed weapon to cast a spell (or an instrument, for that matter).
Anyway, I think a lot of the points that have been made are relevant to your initial question. The restrictions you're presuming are placed on violins are more extreme than is necessarily the case. There aren't even game rules for how many hands a particular instrument takes to play.
I liked the idea of weird words as a weapon, but it's something that would require a significant rewrite. If the sound striker were in playtest it would be one thing, but for errata it's just too much.
Based on how terribly weak wordstrike is, it seems likely that weird words was never intended to target a single creature more than once. If that's the case, the proposed rewrite is actually an improvement, not a nerf (save for the absurd performance cost). At a lower cost, I could see it being used a few times over the course of a campaign.
Though I do agree that it's a bit pointless to write a direct damage archetype that fails to improve the class's potential at dealing direct damage.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
So this archetype replaces a non-combat ability (suggestion) with a combat ability (weird words), so weird words can't be a strong combat ability because that would be a significant powerup for this archetype (replacing a non-combat ability with a combat ability, and replacing a weak ability with a strong ability).
If that's the goal, I say errata weird words as you've already proposed. If you want the ability to be weak, it's weak. Though I would consider reducing the performance cost to 1 round total, or maybe 2. 1 round per word is pretty excessive. I still think sonic damage is more sensible than physical damage, since you're attacking with sound and all.
As far as what a lot of us would like the sound striker to be, the answer may just be to homebrew a new sound striker archetype. Maybe one that replaces more than just a couple niche performances, to really justify having a viable direct damage ability. For PFS players, well, there's always Thundercaller, right?
First of all, vestigial arm comes with its own set of restrictions on gaining attacks. It never grants additional off-hand attacks per round, so its real use with a TWF gunslinger will be reloading.
Second, using two off-hands to grip a two-handed weapon (melee or ranged) really isn't allowed or disallowed by the rules; It's simply never addressed (as far as I can find). I can imagine it being allowed for two-handed melee weapons (each off-hand grants +.5xStr modifier damage), but two-handed ranged weapons are dubious. For instance, a composite longbow used in two off-hands shouldn't be getting the same strength modifier to damage as one used with a primary hand (following the logic of off-hands). I would just steer clear of that idea.
As Rynjin stated. Bardic music is a standard action to start, but only a free action to maintain. So maintain the song at the start of your turn (free action), remove one hand from the violin (free action), cast a spell (standard), then return that hand to the violin (free action). Presumably the hand holding the instrument can temporarily grip the bow.
@Tels: I like the scorching ray equivalent too. I tried rewriting my earlier suggestion, and frankly I like yours better. So you've got my vote! (as if it mattered)
Though I don't see the sounds being rays is a problem, in terms of too much damage accumulating.
very casual example:
I'm playing in a PF campaign with a 9th level party. If my character were a sound striker, with your suggestion I would be expending 2 rounds of performance as a standard action to deal an average of about 30 sonic damage to a single target (28av+2PBS). Off the top of my head, I can think of ways to get that number up to about 38. I'd guess the party's DPR classes do an average of about 60+ in a full attack. More importantly, the sound-striker is trading his potential to buff those characters and his own attacks to instead make a ray attack, which really narrows the difference in net damage. The only exception that comes to mind would take a 5th level bard spell. And if the damage becomes more competitive with optimization, I think that's okay, because the character is investing resources into that specialization. So for what it's worth, I could see that character fitting into the party without conflict.
I agree that a recipient of raging song should simply be allowed to activate their own rage ability instead of the skald's, save that they receive the benefit of bonus rage powers. I think that's balanced, because while barbarians are gaining a superior benefit, it's also something they've already invested their resources into (unlike classes without rage).
This is a simple idea, but what about a couple more songs? Maybe a "furious casting song" that boosts spell damage? Basically, any way for the skald to buff a party of gishes and casters. As a support class, their utility shouldn't be so narrow.
I really like the idea of making the skald a divine caster. Mostly because that really carves a unique niche for future archetypes. I've found myself wanting to play a divine bard, and was disappointing that wasn't an option.
Oh god, the number crunching! This is part of why I mentioned the class should expand the function of favored target. If the class can excel at debilitating an enemy with their attacks then they'll at least offer something that can't be measured through DPR calculations.
For talents, I think it makes sense to give the slayer "any rogue talent which modifies or improves sneak attack". Then sneak attack talents can just be written for the rogue, while the slayer can get more specific talents that have synergy with his favored target class feature.
Whatever spell-list and progression they end up going with (ranger or druid), I think the spell list can be filled out with options that add bonus spells to their list. This could be something as simple as selecting a ranger spell to add to your list of druid spells every couple levels.
I think the idea of possessing your animal companion is great. Shared senses too.
Animal Focus isn't a bad option, or unbalanced, it's just dry, particularly considering the magic item overlap. Wolf, Stag, and Snake are on the right track. I'd much prefer seeing this ability grant special combat options related to animals than stat and skill buffs. I'd prefer this to the suggestion of importing combat styles. Maybe you could receive an additional bonus if the animal type matches your companion.
I'm on board with more cooperative abilities. Maybe scaling the "aid another" bonuses when used between you and your companion. Or some set-up abilities that take advantage of readied actions.
The one class I suspect needs a longer playtest period than the rest is the Arcanist. The strength of the wizard to adapt his spell selection to a given circumstance is something that really emerges over the course of several sessions, so determining the potency of combining that with the sorcerer's spontaneous casting is something that can't be approximated with most one-shots.
Chaotic Fighter wrote:
As written, their levels don't count as fighter levels (I think?). That said, I think they should. And I agree, there are a number of ways to overcome the issue of damage reduction that don't invoke supernaturally aligning your unarmed strikes. (Greater) penetrating strike, amulet of mighty fists, magic knuckles. Even an Ex ability that worked similar to (and stacked with) penetrating strike would do the job.
I agree that Brawler Strike is misplaced. The class should have only extraordinary abilities. If you want to bypass damage reduction with your unarmed strikes, get an amulet of mighty fists.
Besides that, I'd like to see more modularity in the class design. Martial Maneuvers certainly seems to make the brawler versatile, but may also make the differences between one brawler and another (mechanically) less distinct.
Martial Maneuvers also seems difficult to gauge without seeing it in action. I agree that the duration should be longer, perhaps at the expense of its versatility. I almost wonder if the on-the-fly feats shouldn't be something prepared and then selected spontaneously, sort of like the martial parallel to Arcanists (with or without a book of martial maneuvers).
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
True enough! Didn't mean to sound so skeptical. Mostly I was just trying to establish to what degree the classes are subject to change, and in what ways their mechanics are fixed. Though that's something to be explored on a case-by-case basis, I'm sure.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I suspect a lot of the pushback is due to love for the archetype system. What hybrid classes attempt is a lot of what archetypes have been used for, and many of us would just like to stick to that system. For instance, the concept of "bard" or "fighter" is general enough to allow a multitude of archetypes. To me, half of the hybrid classes feel too similar to their parents in concept to allow meaning expansion through archetypes. I could of course be wrong, that's just my impression.
That said, I'm not arguing against the release of the product. That ship has sailed (which has been stated more than once). I know none of the classes will be scrapped, but I at least hope you're willing to make some meaningful changes to the framework of the mechanics, rather than only minor tweaks. Otherwise, it would be good to know that now and be saved the effort of unsolicited design advice. :)
Hybrid Classes fail to offer new niches, unnecessary reiterate old classes and dilute support for existing classes.
I think the point is still valid, though I would state it differently. We already have a holy warrior, it's called the War Cleric (Crusader)/Paladin/Battle Oracle/Inquisitor. In other words, there's just so much support for some concepts that we don't need to retread that ground. Though to their credit, each of the classes I listed is distinct, at least.
I agree that the hybrid-classes might open up options that didn't exist in quite the desired configuration before. But I think it's something that could have been done better through a more substantial use of archetypes. With the Warpriest, for instance, why not instead present blessings as alternate domain abilities? It could be attached to an archetype that lets you enhance weapons and armor in place of channel energy. (though I'm aware warpriests also possess channel energy).
My disappointment with the hybrid classes isn't so much that I was looking for entirely new concepts (as seen in classes like alchemist and summoner), but more that I was expecting a book of magus-like classes. To me, magus is a success for mostly two reasons:
1. It combines two class concepts (fighter and wizard) in a way that results in something unique in both function and effect.
So to be worth-while, I feel that these hybrid-classes need to excel on one or both points. Without getting into specifics, I feel that most of the new classes are pretty distant from one or the other goal. Abilities that are familiar are good for game balance, but it's not something that motivates me to pick up a class.
I like the direction that Favored Target is going. One thing I think this book needs more of are hybrid abilities that result in something truly unique (like Magus), and I think Favored Target is the Slayer's foothold into this. So, personally, I'd like to see that ability be the focus of more (if not most) slayer talents. Sneak attack is all about looking for an opening and pinpointing weaknesses, so it'd make sense for favored target to have a more direct synergy with that ability, possibly boosting the DC of sneak attack talents, or allowing them to succeed on enemies normally immune.
Not a fan of the slayer's ability to simultaneously study so many opponents at once. Eventually you're able to study 5 opponents at once, at which point I think you lose the impression you're really focusing on something.
I'm on the fence about whether it should be Int or Wis based. Either makes sense, considering it's the rogue/ranger hybrid.
I'm also very confused as to why the Investigator gets higher Sneak Attack progression than the Slayer.
Same here! I don't doubt they make up for the damage in other ways, but from a narrative perspective, this is a class that "spends most of their time...studying the habits and anatomy of foes" and have "a dedication to the art of death." Their sneak attack should be better than an investigator at least, if not a rogue.
I don't know of any rules that cover this specifically.
However, since Greater Disarm serves a similar function (sending an opponent's item flying), you probably shouldn't be able to obtain similar results without a feat.
That said, it's hard to justify prohibiting someone from kicking an item. I'd say it probably falls under the category of manipulating an item, which is a move action. I'd house-rule that it provoked. Past that, it's a case-by-case basis. There are just too many possibilities for the rules to cover what you can kick and how far. In most cases, I would say 5ft.
Here we go:
It isn't spelled out, but if your caster level is increased only for a particular spell, I think it's clear that you use the caster level of that spell for any relevant caster level checks (such as against spell resistance). The same would be true of a penalty to caster level on a spell or spell school.
So, I was looking through the PRD, and noticed Table: New Item Craft DCs (scroll down to Field Repair). This table includes the new weapon types introduced in that book (Ultimate Combat), along with the corresponding craft skills and DCs. What the table is missing are craft skills and DCs for the ammunition of one-handed and two-handed firearms, siege firearms, and siege weapons. I posted this as an omission in the Ultimate Combat errata thread, which generated some discussion as to whether or not it was possible to craft firearms or firearm ammunition through any means other than gunsmithing. I insisted you could, but since it was disputed, I've decided to bring the topic here for discussion.
Question A: Can firearms and firearm ammunition be crafted through use of the craft (firearms) and craft (alchemy) skills? Or is the Gunsmithing feat the only option?
I think the answer to A is Yes. Below are my reasons, as responses to counter-arguments:
1)That table is only meant to be referenced when using the Field Repair feat.
Field Repair states that to repair a broken item "you can make a Craft check with the DC it takes to craft that item (see Table 2–2, below)." The table is titled "New Item Craft DCs". I believe the table is intended to expand the craft skill generally, and appears under a relevant feat because the book lacks a "Skills" chapter (due to too few new skills to justify a whole chapter).
2)A character is meant to take gunsmithing if he wants to craft firearms and ammunition. The feat wouldn't exist if you could just use the craft skill instead.
Craft (firearms) at the very least exists as a skill, according to the Feats chapter. Gunsmithing doesn't utilize the craft skill, so it can't exist as a prerequisite. As such, craft (firearms) likely follows the same rules as any craft skill. My feeling is that the purpose of gunsmithing is simply to streamline gun maintenance, due to the frequency of misfires. Also, to avoid requiring all gunslingers to invest in two craft skills.
3) Crafting firearms might be allowed, but ammunition was intentionally omitted.
I suspect ammunition was mistakenly omitted in editing as a result of it having no relevance to the field repair feat. That, and if it's possible to craft a firearm through craft (firearms), it's silly to require a feat to craft the small ball of lead it propels. At any rate, gunsmithing doesn't cover ammunition for siege firearms.
4)The page on firearms references needing Gunsmithing on two occasions to craft and repair firearms. Under Emerging Guns, it states you need the "Craft Firearms feat" to make effective use of guns.
"Craft Firearms" doesn't exist as a feat anywhere I can find, but they might have meant "Gunsmithing". I think this is the best argument. It's possible that after some deliberation, the designers decided you couldn't craft firearms without gunsmithing, but then forget that the craft (firearms) skill existed in another chapter.
At the very least, the table needs craft skills and DCs for siege firearm and siege weapon ammunition, unless I've overlooked it. Apologies in advance if this has been answered or I've made some critical error.
DR doesn't seem to be a major issue to me. DR generally doesn't scale as high as energy resistance, and doesn't seem any more common than energy resistance. So I don't think Weird Words is at a distinct disadvantage in that regard. Though I still insist sonic damage is what makes sense.
Glad to hear they're now rays! Wooo! Rules with precedent!
It's true that, as a ray, it can now have it's damage boosted much higher. But so can rays from other sources, many of which don't interrupt a performance. A high level bard might average 39 damage per ray (18av+13Cha+5AS+1PBS+2GH), or 43 with inspire courage. You can fire up to 10 rays, but only within 30ft, which isn't any more impressive than an area spell. I wouldn't say this level of damage is worth worrying about.
I think that if you allowed weird words to function without interrupting a performance, and at the cost of one performance for all rays, it might be a worth-while trade (though nothing to get excited about).
I'm still a supporter of focused fire. Here's my suggestion: Same rules as the PDT suggestion, but costs 2 performance rounds (at all levels), gives 1 sound per 2 bard levels, and add +1d8 damage per additional ray targeted at a single subject (no additional attacks/attack rolls). That would allow a single ray to deal 7d8+Cha modifier at level 10, or 13d8+Cha modifier at level 20. It'd be a strong option, but not out of control for the given levels (from my experience).